“The Great Withdrawal”

Published:First published inPravdaNo. 76, June 21 (8), 1917.

      Published according to thePravdatext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 25,

      pages60-62.Translated:Transcription\Markup:D. WaltersandC. FarrellPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive.  

      2000You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work, as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

“Thegreat withdrawal of the bourgeoisie from the government."
    This is what the main speaker of the Executive Committee, in a
    report he submitted last Sunday, called the formation of the
    coalition government and the entry of former socialists into the
    Ministry.

Onlythe first three words in this phrase are correct. "The
      great withdrawal" does indeed characterise and explain May 6
      (the formation of the coalition government). It was on that day
      that "the great withdrawal" really began, or, to be exact,
      manifested itself most clearly. Only, it was not a great
      withdrawal of the bourgeoisie from the government but a great
      withdrawal of the Menshevik and Narodnik leadersfromthe revolution.

Thesignificance of the Congress of Soviets of Soldiers’ and
      Workers’ Deputies now in session lies in the fact that it has
      made this circumstance clearer than ever.

May6was a triumph for the bourgeoisie. The bourgeois
      government was on the verge of defeat. The masses were
      definitely and absolutely, sharply and irreconcilably opposed to
      it. One word from the Narodnik and Menshevik leaders of the
      Soviet would have sufficed to induce the government to
      relinquish its power unquestioningly. Lvov had to admit that
      openly at the sitting in the Mariinsky Palace.

Thebourgeoisie resorted to a skilful manoeuvre which was new to
      the Russian petty bourgeoisie and to Russia’s masses in general,
      which intoxicated the intellectual Menshevik and Narodnik
      leaders, and which took proper account of their Louis Blanc
      nature. The reader may recall that Louis Blanc was a renowned
      petty-bourgeois socialist who enteredthe French Government in
      1848 and became as sadly famed in 1871. Louis Blanc imagined
      himself to bethe leaderof the "labour democrats" or
      ’socialist democrats" (the term “democracy” was used in the
      France of 1848 as frequently as inSocialist-Revolutionary[1]and Menshevik writing in 1917),
      but in reality he was thetail-endof the bourgeoisie, a
      play thing in their hands.

Duringthe almost seventy years that have elapsed since then,
      that manoeuvre, which is a novelty in Russia, has been made many
      times by the bourgeoisie in the West. The purpose of this
      manoeuvre is to make the "socialist democratic" leaders who
      “withdraw” from socialism and from the revolution harmlessappendagesof a bourgeois government, to shield this
      government from the people by means of near-socialist Ministers,
      to cover up the counter-revolutionary nature of the bourgeoisie
      by a glittering, spectacular faíade of “socialist”
      ministerialism.

Thismethod has been developed to a veritable art in France. It
      has also been tested on many occasions in Anglo-Saxon,
      Scandinavian, and many of the Latin countries. It is this
      manoeuvre that was made in Russia on May 6, 1917.

“Our”near-socialist Ministers found themselves in a situation
      in which the bourgeoisie began to usethemas their
      cat’s paw, to dothrough themwhat the bourgeoisie could
      never have done without them.

ThroughGuchkov it would have been impossible to lure the people
      into continuing theimperialist,predatory war, a warfor redivisionof the colonies and annexed territories
      in general. Through Kerensky (and Tsereteli, who was busier
      defending Tereshchenko than defending the post and telegraph
      workers), the bourgeoisie were able, as correctly admitted by
      Milyukov and Maklakov, to begin “organising” the continuation of
      this kind of war.

ThroughShingaryov it would have been impossible to ensure the
      preservation of the landed estates system at least until the
      convocation of the Constituent Assembly (if an offensive were to
      take place, it would “enable Russia to re cover completely",
      said Maklakov. That means that the Constituent Assembly itself
      would be “healthier”). Through Chernov, this can be brought
      about. The peasants have been told, although they have not been
      very glad to hear it, thatto rent land from the landowners by
      agreement with each individual owner is “order”, while to
      abolish the landed estates at one stroke and rentfrom the
      people,pending the convocation of the Constituent Assembly,
      land formerly owned by the landowners is “anarchy”. This
      counter-revolutionary idea of the landowners could only be put
      into effect through Chernov.

ThroughKonovalov it would have been impossible to ensure the
      safeguarding(and the increase—seewhat the
      ministerial newspaper,Rabochaya Gazeta, writes about
      the coal industrialists) of the scandalous profits from war
      contracts. Through Skobelev, or with his participation, this
      safeguarding can be ensured by allegedly preserving the old
      order, by near-“Marxist” rejection of the possibility of
      “introducing” socialism.

Becausesocialism cannot be introduced the scandalously
      high profits made by the capitalists not from their purely
      capitalist businessbut from supplies to the armed forces,
      to thestate—these profitscanbe both
      concealed from the people and retained!—this is the
      wonderful Struvean argument which has brought together
      Tereshchenko and Lvov, on the one hand, and the “Marxist”
      Skobelev, on the other.

Popularmeetings and the Soviets cannot be influenced through
      Lvov, Milyukov, Tereshchenko, Shingaryov and the rest. But they
      can be influenced through Tsereteli, Chernov and Co. in the same
      old bourgeois direction. And one can pursuethe same
      oldbourgeois-imperialist policy by means of particularly
      impressive, particularly “nice”-sounding phrases, to the point
      of denying the people the elementary democratic right toelectlocal authorities and prevent both their
      appointment and confirmation from above.

Bydenying this right, Tsereteli, Chernov and Co. have
      unwittingly turned from ex-socialists into ex-democrats.

A“great withdrawal", all right!

[1]Socialist-Revolutionaries(S.R.s)—a petty-bourgeois party founded
in Russia in late 1901 and early 1902 as a result of the
amalgamation of various Narodnik groups and circles. Their views were an
eclectic hodgepodge of Narodnik and revisionist ideas. During
the First World War most of the S.R.s advocated social-chauvinist
views.

Afterthe February bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1917 the
S.R.s and Mensheviks were the mainstay of the counter–
revolutionary, bourgeois-landowner Provisional Government, and S.R.
leaders (Kerensky, Avksentyev, Chernov) were members of the
cabinet. The S.R. Party refused to support the peasants’ demand
for the abolition of the landed estates, and advocated their
preservation. The S.R. numbers of the Provisional Government sent
punitive expeditions against peasants who had seized landed
estates.

Atthe end of November 1917 the Left S.R.s formed an
independent party. To retain their influence on the peasants, they
nominally recognised Soviet power and reached agreement with
the Bolsheviks. But shortly afterwards they began to fight against
Soviet rule.

Duringthe foreign military intervention and the Civil War the
S.R.s engaged in counter-revolutionary subversion, actively
supported the invaders and whiteguards, took part in counter–
revolutionary conspiracies, and organised acts of terrorism against Soviet
statesmen and Communist Party leaders. After the Civil War they
continued their hostile activity inside the country and abroad,
where they joined the White émigrés.